Are you talking about when the Apple lawyer held up the two devices and asked the team of Samsung's lawyers to identify them? Where one member of the team couldn't because they couldn't see well, but the rest of the team correctly identified them?
It's a nice idea, but the DMCA was written by the copyright holders. The fact that it's full of loopholes which work in their favor is not an accident. The best way to "fix" the DMCA, is to get rid of it entirely. The only reason for it in the first place is to bypass due process.
The entire point of the DMCA is to bypass the courts (and due process). If you want to change it so that they must be signed by a judge, then you might as well just get rid of the DMCA entirely (which, personally, I think would be a great idea).
Because the law states it's the subscriber's liability for any infringement done on the connection.
Which is completely idiocy. The husband is negligent because he let his wife use the connection that was in his name? Are they kidding?
What that effectively means is that each individual must have their own connection, and not share it with anybody. I'm sure the ISPs would love that, but it makes no sense.
Simplicity isn't easy, it just looks easy. That it took apple to wipe away all that cruft is evidence enough of that. If it truly were generic someone would have done it before.
It took the maturation of touchscreen technology to enable the obvious evolution in design, it had nothing to do with Apple other than they were the first to make use of it. The fact that someone did it first, does not mean that it wasn't obvious. The industry in general was already heading in that direction, they just couldn't get there yet because technology wasn't able to support it.
Alas, the congress critters seem intent to not increase the funding to get to a healthy state.
Maybe their definition of "a healthy state" is different than yours and mine. From their perspective, is the patent system really broken, or is it working exactly as intended.
That wouldn't change the point of the story though. Whether or not he could eventually afford the better boots, the point still stands that the person with less resources has to spend more.
He was granted a DVR patent several years after the Tivo was released. I'd say he understands prior art very well, and has an obvious interest in prior art being ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
stonishing but still within the copyright term length. Abhorrent? You bet. But I wouldn't go around attacking publishers
Why not? Who do you think are the ones that wanted the terms that long in the first place.
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised. It's a two party system, and the game is rigged to keep it that way.
How many parties were represented in the recent president/vice-president debates?
The difference is that the RIAA has spent a lot more money bribing politicians than Levi has.
Rich corporate executives favor the candidate from the party that panders to rich corporations? I'm shocked!
Are you talking about when the Apple lawyer held up the two devices and asked the team of Samsung's lawyers to identify them? Where one member of the team couldn't because they couldn't see well, but the rest of the team correctly identified them?
It's a nice idea, but the DMCA was written by the copyright holders. The fact that it's full of loopholes which work in their favor is not an accident. The best way to "fix" the DMCA, is to get rid of it entirely. The only reason for it in the first place is to bypass due process.
Why do you think the RIAA wrote the law in the first place?
The entire point of the DMCA is to bypass the courts (and due process). If you want to change it so that they must be signed by a judge, then you might as well just get rid of the DMCA entirely (which, personally, I think would be a great idea).
But the entire point of the DMCA is to bypass due process.
Or photoshopping an image of their competitor's tablet to make it look more like an iPad. Oh wait...
Because the law states it's the subscriber's liability for any infringement done on the connection.
Which is completely idiocy. The husband is negligent because he let his wife use the connection that was in his name? Are they kidding?
What that effectively means is that each individual must have their own connection, and not share it with anybody. I'm sure the ISPs would love that, but it makes no sense.
It's difficult to blame the voters when every candidate on the ballot is a butthead.
Simplicity isn't easy, it just looks easy. That it took apple to wipe away all that cruft is evidence enough of that. If it truly were generic someone would have done it before.
It took the maturation of touchscreen technology to enable the obvious evolution in design, it had nothing to do with Apple other than they were the first to make use of it. The fact that someone did it first, does not mean that it wasn't obvious. The industry in general was already heading in that direction, they just couldn't get there yet because technology wasn't able to support it.
a Duracell AA battery wouldn't count as prior art for an Energizer C battery, since they don't fit in the same devices
Yet at the same time, rule that a D battery infringes.
Apple devices on the outside are famously featureless (spartan in appearance)
Which is precisely why people are upset that a patent was granted for the "featureless" design. It creates a patent that is way too generic/broad.
To drop cameras on the target?
That doesn't mention "rounded corners" anywhere
Sure it does. In a design patent, the pictures are the claims. The patent contains 9 drawings of a rectangle with rounded corners.
So you're saying instead of a patent on a 2D rectangle with rounded corners, it's really a patent for a 3D rectangle with rounded corners.
Oh, that's totally different!
Alas, the congress critters seem intent to not increase the funding to get to a healthy state.
Maybe their definition of "a healthy state" is different than yours and mine. From their perspective, is the patent system really broken, or is it working exactly as intended.
That wouldn't change the point of the story though. Whether or not he could eventually afford the better boots, the point still stands that the person with less resources has to spend more.
and as long as it hasn't been done before and it's not obvious
From what I can tell, those are no longer requirements.
He was granted a DVR patent several years after the Tivo was released. I'd say he understands prior art very well, and has an obvious interest in prior art being ignored.
Have you read the D504889 patent?
That's the whole point. These laws and lawsuits are a way of stifling competition, they have little to do with protecting innovation.
Theoretically, filing a false DMCA notice is perjury, but I don't think it has ever been enforced.